Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Singh Kanawat ... on 3 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:43597-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 778/2024
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati
Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara, District-
Bhilwara.
4. Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti - Jahajpur, District-
Bhilwara.
5. Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti - Kotadi, District
Bhilwara.
6. Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti - Bijolia, District -
Bhilwara.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Hari Singh Kanawat S/o Shri Roop Singh Kanawat, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Village - Sherpura, Post - Kharuna,
Tehsil Jahajpur, District - Bhilwara.
2. Ram Lal Meena S/o Shri Kesari Lal Meena, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village - Rami Ki Jopadiya, Post-
Badanayagaon, Tehsil - Hindoli, District - Bundi.
3. Shankar Lal Meena S/o Shri Ladu Lal Meena, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Village Post - Negarh, Tehsil - Hindoli,
District Bundi.
4. Parmeshwar Meena S/o Shri Pratap Lal Meena, Aged
About 39 Years, Ro Village Post- Vijaygarh, Tehsil -
Hindoli, District - Bundi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pawan Bharti for
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumar
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order
03/10/2025
1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present
impugned order is based on State of Rajasthan Vs. Lalita (D.B.
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 11:48:27 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43597-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-778/2024]
Spl. Appl. Writ No.567/2025) (I.A. No.01/2025) and the
case of Lalita (supra) has already been dismissed by the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025.
2. The order dated 10.07.2025 is reproduced as under :
"I.A. No.01/202 5 :-
In this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 the appellants have stated thus:
"2. That it is submitted that the present appeal has
been filed after an expiry of the period of limitation
as prescribed under the law and the time period was
lapsed due to some administrative reasons
3. That sometime lapsed in obtaining the certified
copy petition and after obtaining the certified copy of
the judgment dated 21.03.2022 the copy was sent to
department for further deliberations.
4. Thereafter, a meeting of pre-litigation committee
was held and a decision was taken to file an appeal in
the instant case on ___.___.202__.
5. Thereafter, officer in-charge was appointed to file
an appeal in the matter on __.__.202__.
6. That the officer in-charge produced the relevant
record before the counsels for filing of appeal.
However, certain additional documents were called
for by the counsels for appellants and some time has
been lapsed in collating and collecting the relevant
documents.
7. That sometime has been lapsed in preparing the
special appeal and the same has been filed after the
due approval without any lapse of time. It may be
further pointed out that there are several such
identical controversies which have been decided in
ignorance of material facts and law and for proper
adjudication of instant controversy, the instant
appeal deserves condonation of delay.
8. That in view of the facts stated above and
impending merits of the matter, it is clear that all the
required bonafide efforts have been made to file the
present appeal at the earliest. However, the appeal
could not be within stipulated time period due to
some administrative reasons. The delay so caused in
filing the present appeal is bonafide and the same is
required to be condoned in the interest of justice. It
is submitted that the present special appeal involves
a substantial question of law as the same require
adjudication on merits. In this view of the matter, it
is in the interest of justice to condone the delay in
filing the present appeal; the present appeal may
also be heard and disposed of on merits.
9. That in these circumstances, it is submitted that
the delay caused in the present case is bonafide and
the same should be condone in securing the ends of
justice."
2. On a glance at the aforesaid statements made by the
appellants seeking condonation of delay of 978 days, we
observed that such huge delay cannot be said to have occurred
inadvertently. Not only the date on which an application for
obtaining certified copy of the judgment dated 21st March 2022
was made is not disclosed, this is also not disclosed when the
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 11:48:27 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43597-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-778/2024]
certified copy was obtained and legal opinion as stated in
paragraph no.3 was obtained.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the application under section
5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not provide any satisfactory
reason for condoning the delay of 978 days, we have glanced
through the order passed by the writ Court and found that the
writ Court's order is based on the decision in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.12109 of 2018 titled "Nand kishore Sharma & Ors. v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.". The writ Court observed that the Zila
Parishad at Sriganganagar and Zila Parishad at Dungarpur have
passed orders granting notional benefits to the other similarly
situated candidates.
4. Having regard to these facts, we are of the opinion that
the present Special Appeal (Writ) prima-facie seems to have no
merit.
5. In view of the aforesaid considerations, we do not find any
reason to condone the delay of 978 days and, accordingly, I.A.
No.01 of 2025 is dismissed.
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 567 of 2025 :-
Consequent upon dismissal of the application I.A
No.01/2025, the present D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 567 of
2025 is dismissed."
3. Accordingly, the present appeal is also dismissed.
4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
35-AnilKC/-
(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 11:48:27 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
